P.Subburaj vs V.Balraj
2022 Latest Caselaw 1418 Mad

                                                                                 Crl.O.P.No.29320 of 2018

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

                                                    Dated: 31.01.2022

                                                        CORAM

                                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR

                                                Crl.O.P.No.29320 of 2018
                                                           &
                                                Crl.M.P.No.17204 of 2018

                     P.Subburaj                                      ... Petitioner/Accused

                                                         Versus
                     V.Balraj                                        ... Respondent/Complainant

                     PRAYER : Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to
                     call for entire records pertaining to all further proceedings in C.C.No.2790
                     of 2017 pending on the file of the XIX Metropolitan Magistrate,
                     Corporation Building, Chennai and quash the same as illegal, incompetent
                     by allowing criminal original petition.

                                       For Petitioner      ... Mr.R.Jayaprakash
                                       For Respondent      ... Mr.P.Vasanth

                                                        ORDER

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the proceedings

initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 against

the petitioner.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29320 of 2018

2.The crux of the allegations made in the complaint is that the

petitioner/accused by giving false assurance to the de facto complainant that

he could secure a job in the Tamil Nadu Government Office, demanded a

sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The de facto complainant also paid the said amount to

the accused, but, the accused did not keep up his promise of securing the

Government job. Hence, he had given two cheques to the de facto

complainant for repayment of the amount received by him. When the

cheques were presented for collection, the same were returned as 'Funds

Insufficient'. Hence the present petition.

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the cheques

were not issued for a lawful consideration, therefore, the same cannot be

enforced in the eye of law. In support of his contention he relied upon the

judgment of this Court in R.Sami Vs K.T.Harichandran (Crl.A.No.212 of

2006) reported in [2017 SCC Online Mad 19446] and the judgment of the

Punjab High Court in Gurbaksh Singh Sodhi @ Gurbax Singh Vs Ranjit

Singh reported in [2014 SCC Online P&H 433].

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29320 of 2018

4.The above judgment in Crl.A.No.212 of 2006 arisen out of the

acquittal passed by the trial Court, wherein this Court while considering

Section 138 of N.I Act held that the issuance of the cheque is not supported

by lawful consideration and hence, confirmed the order of the trial Court

and dismissed the appeal.

5.It is to be noted that the very complaint indicates that the cheques

were issued towards the repayment of the amount paid by the de facto

complainant. Though the object of the payment is not enforceable in the eye

of law, but the fact remains that the cheques were issued for repayment of

the amount. Therefore, merely because the amount said to have been paid to

secure the job is illegal, it cannot be said that seeking repayment of the same

amount itself is illegal. The purpose for which the amount given may be

illegal and unlawful, but the allegations appears that after receiving the

money for securing job by giving false assurance, the accused had given

cheques for return of the money. Such being the position, this Court is of

the view that at this stage the question as to whether acquiring job by paying

money is entirely lawful or not is not the subject matter. If any cheque is

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29320 of 2018

given to discharge the whole or part of any debt or liability, the complaint is

maintainable. Whether the amount paid for illegal purpose is enforceable or

comes within the ambit of liabilities, shall be decided before the trial Court

by adducing evidence.

6.In such view of the matter, at this stage, I do not intend to quash

the proceedings in C.C.No.2790 of 2017 pending before the learned XIX

Metropolitan Magistrate, Corporation Building, Chennai. Accordingly, this

Criminal Original Petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected

miscellaneous petition is closed.

7.The Trial Court is directed to complete the trial within a period of

four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

31.01.2022 Speaking/Non-speaking order Index:Yes/No ms/nsa

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29320 of 2018

To

The XIX Metropolitan Magistrate, Corporation Building, Chennai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Crl.O.P.No.29320 of 2018

N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.

ms/nsa

Crl.O.P.No.29320 of 2018 & Crl.M.P.No.17204 of 2018

31.01.2022

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis